Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Shadows over Camelot» Forums » Rules

Subject: Traitor? You? No! rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Müller
Germany
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Hi everybody!

Imagine the following situation: (it doesn't really matter how many players, but would happen in 3 or 4 player games more often as in larger groups.)

Everybody except(!) the real traitor has been accused of being the traitor. The real guy has been beyond any doubt. So the only one left to make an accusation is the traitor. But obviously there is no traitor he could accuse, everybody has shown his loyalty card.

Should the player be allowed to make an accusation nontheless? Of course this would make a big target on him, but: nobody left to hurt him.

What if he would need THIS one black sword to win?

I know everybody can accuse once.
But can you accuse somebody twice?

I am eager to read answers about following the "letter of the rules" contra the " spirit of the game/ theme".

Best wishes,
Chris
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Reynolds
United States
Vermontville
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It would seem to me that once the loyalty of a player is known, he should no longer be a viable target for accusation. Although I don't recall anything in the rules that specifically states that, it seems to make the most sense to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Luca Iennaco
Italy
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmb
Each player may accuse only once and be accused only once.

In your case, the Traitor would have already gained all the black Swords for the wrong accusations done by the other players; it's time that he gets a Black Sword in some other way if he needs one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mik Svellov
Denmark
Copenhagen N
EU
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Well, the makers of the game claim it has been meticulously playtested, so either have they foreseen this event and allowed it, or they have decided it to be "against the spirit of the game" and thus not allowed.

There is of course the possibility that a sentence was left out of the rules by accident: "A knight with a known (face up) Loyalty cannot be accused."

Well spotted, Chris!
Mik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Müller
Germany
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
One more thing....

Well it might seem to make more sense to forbid a second accusation of somebody already proven innocent, but from the traitor's point of view there isn't much difference I think.

He knows for sure the other guy is innocent when he accuses, it doesn't matter which way the loyalty card is lying on the table. The loyalty cards represent the inner motivation of the knights. If I were the traitor I could present second "evidence" for treason of Sir Whatever. Imagine playing as second action the card that reveals me as traitor and makes you all loose two cards.
Boom! Nice combination. I'll better go into hiding and start taunting you all being blind.

I know the reasons why the traitor is allowed to make an accusation in regular gameplay, besides getting that ( needed ) sword.

I am just trying to find a thought to allow or to forbid the situation I have shown in my first post.

I guess we could argue and think about it all the week, solution will come with Mr. Bruno Cathala or Mr. Serge Laget or DoW.

happy gaming
Chris

P.S.

I have watched Excalibur today, :-)

And why does Sir Parzival have a heart on his breastplate????
He looks like an oversized care bear. Well...the sword doesn't fit the picture.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Patrick Reynolds
United States
Vermontville
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
How about if we let the rules answer this question?

From the section covering making an accusation:

"Accuse a fellow Knight of being the Traitor and force him to immediately reveal his Loyalty card to all of you."

If a players loyalty card is already revealed, then you can't complete this action.

It seems obvious to me that the intent of the game is to only allow any player to be accused one time. I believe the rules imply this as well.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
bruno cathala
France
st pierre en faucigny
Unspecified
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Just coming back fron my week end, i rush onto boardgamegeek in case there are some questions about our game...

concerning accusation: you are only allowed to accuse a valid target, that means a knight whom loyalty card is still unknown !
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mik Svellov
Denmark
Copenhagen N
EU
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
pkreynolds wrote:
It seems obvious to me that the intent of the game is to only allow any player to be accused one time. I believe the rules imply this as well.


Very well. But the rules doesn't imply that knights may not even be accused once - which they could easily avoid by revealing themselves by calling upon FATE.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
MYOB MYOB
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
If six players have accused each other and the Traitor has not accused or been accused, the Traitor simply can't lose.

Less than that...still. A lone traitor who can't be accused can openly stab Camelot and still rack up two black swords in the end.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Federico Galeotti
Italy
Firenze
flag msg tools
http://www.gruppoludico.it/
badge
I believe you find life such a problem because you think there are the good people and the bad people. You're wrong, of course. There are, always and only, the bad people, but some of them are on opposite sides.
Avatar
mb
Quote:
Very well. But the rules doesn't imply that knights may not even be accused once - which they could easily avoid by revealing themselves by calling upon FATE.


I haven't understood that.

The "Fate" card lists two different effects for Loyal or Traitorous knights, but the rules state explicitly that a Traitor can still use the "Fate" card as a Loyal knight in order to divert the suspicions from himself; so a knight who has used the Fate card as a loyal knight is not above suspicion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mik Svellov
Denmark
Copenhagen N
EU
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
vetinari7878 wrote:
Quote:
Very well. But the rules doesn't imply that knights may not even be accused once - which they could easily avoid by revealing themselves by calling upon FATE.


I haven't understood that.

The "Fate" card lists two different effects for Loyal or Traitorous knights, but the rules state explicitly that a Traitor can still use the "Fate" card as a Loyal knight in order to divert the suspicions from himself; so a knight who has used the Fate card as a loyal knight is not above suspicion.


My bad. I haven't read the text carefully enough. I was under the delusion that a good knight could choose to reveal himself if he wanted to.

Mik
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Müller
Germany
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Thank you for the answer Mr. Cathala.
Greetings,
Chris

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.